On January 13, the University Grants Commission (UGC) notified its long-awaited rules to address caste-based discrimination on college and university campuses. These rules are called the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The aim of the Regulations is to promote fairness, inclusion, and equality in higher education institutions across India.
The Regulations were framed after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court in 2019 by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi. Both students reportedly died by suicide after facing caste-based discrimination in their universities. The petition demanded a strong legal mechanism to prevent such discrimination on campuses.
In early 2025, the Supreme Court told the Union government that it wanted to create a “strong and robust mechanism” to effectively deal with caste discrimination in educational institutions. The Court also allowed the petitioners and other stakeholders to give suggestions on the draft regulations prepared by the UGC. After reviewing these suggestions, the UGC finally notified the Regulations in January 2026. These new rules replace the earlier 2012 UGC Regulations on the same issue.
Although the Regulations were framed with the goal of promoting equity in higher education, they have faced opposition from some sections. Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court claiming that the Regulations discriminate against students and staff from the general category. One petition specifically challenges Regulation 3(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination,” arguing that the law should be caste-neutral and protect everyone equally.
Outside the courts, the Regulations have led to debates and protests in different parts of the country. Some groups believe that the rules pose a threat to the savarna (general category) community. On the other hand, supporters of the Regulations are strongly opposing any rollback and argue that the rules are necessary to protect vulnerable communities. In this context, it is important to understand the key features of the UGC Regulations, 2026.
The main objective of the Regulations is to eliminate discrimination based on religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability. The focus is especially on protecting members of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, and persons with disabilities. The Regulations aim to ensure full equity and inclusion for all stakeholders in higher education institutions.
If a higher education institution does not follow the Regulations, the UGC can take strict action. In cases of non-compliance, the UGC will set up an enquiry committee. If violations are confirmed, the institution may face serious consequences. These include removal from UGC schemes, a ban on offering degree programmes, restrictions on online and distance learning courses, and even removal from the list of recognized institutions under Sections 2(f) and 12B of the UGC Act. The UGC can decide the punishment based on the seriousness of the case.
The biggest controversy around the Regulations is related to Regulation 3(c). Critics argue that it defines caste-based discrimination only as discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC communities, leaving out people from the general category who may also face caste-linked bias. Another concern is the composition of Equity Committees, where reserved-category representation is higher. Opponents feel this affects the right to a fair hearing.
There are also fears that the Regulations could be misused, as there are no penalties for filing false complaints. Critics claim this could lead to “reverse discrimination” and draw comparisons with alleged misuse of the SC/ST Act. Some institutions also worry that strict timelines may force them into rushed decisions without proper inquiry.
Supporters of the Regulations argue that India’s long history of caste-based inequality makes targeted protection necessary. They believe that caste-neutral laws may fail to protect those who have faced systemic discrimination for decades. They also argue that penalties for false complaints could discourage genuine victims from coming forward. According to them, stronger representation of marginalized communities in enquiry panels will build trust and ensure that complaints are taken seriously.
Since the Regulations were introduced following Supreme Court intervention and tragic student deaths, and are now being challenged in court, the final outcome will depend on how the Supreme Court examines these issues. The case is likely to have a major impact on how discrimination is addressed in India’s higher education system in the future.